Reading mode: Light Dark

Upgrade to Canon 7d Mark2 or get better lens

Go to last post
N

Niks27

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone, I am once again stuck!

Need your help on what should I do?

I have got a Canon 700d with a 50mm 1.8 prime, 10-22mm Wide angle, 18-135 Stm Zoom Lens. I am strugggling with these when shooting in low light. I need some advice from you guys now:

I am so far thinking that whether I should upgrade the body to 7d Mark2 or shall I get a Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC Telephoto?

Or if you can give any other option?

Thanks
 
What do you want to photograph that requires a Canon 7D MkII or a 70-200mm f/2.8?

The 7D MkII is a semi-professional camera aimed at sports and wildlife photographers and won't help much in low light. For that you might need a FF camera like the 6D.

Do you want to shoot indoor or nighttime sports? If you do then the 70-200mm f/2.8 is going to be more important than a new body.
 
Niks27 said:
Hi everyone, I am once again stuck!

Need your help on what should I do?

I have got a Canon 700d with a 50mm 1.8 prime, 10-22mm Wide angle, 18-135 Stm Zoom Lens. I am strugggling with these when shooting in low light. I need some advice from you guys now:

I am so far thinking that whether I should upgrade the body to 7d Mark2 or shall I get a Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC Telephoto?
Click to expand...
Chris already answered this well. The 7d mark ii is an an upgrade basically on auto focus, shooting speeds, and weathersealing. A faster lens like the 70-200 will help but it seems an odd pick because it only laps half of your current range. What is it you are trying to shoot
Niks27 said:
Or if you can give any other option?
Click to expand...
As chris said full frame is going to be your only noticeable upgrade by replacing the body. Here is a comparison between the two. Very hard to see the difference in high ISO output

Loading…

www.dpreview.com
Niks27 said:
Thanks
Click to expand...
 
I am gonna be going travelling. With my current gear I am having difficulties when shooting at night time outside and even Indoors without propr lighting. I have been recommended 7d mark 2 by someone and lens i think is very versatile...
 
Niks27 said:
I am gonna be going travelling. With my current gear I am having difficulties when shooting at night time outside and even Indoors without propr lighting. I have been recommended 7d mark 2 by someone and lens i think is very versatile...
Click to expand...
For the moment forget the 7D and the 70-200mm f/2.8. Neither of them will solve your current problems and neither is an obvious choice for travel since they are both big and heavy. Let's try to sort out your current difficulties first.

Do you have a tripod for your night shots?

Do you have an external flash for your indoor shots?

Do you use the 50m f/1.8 for your low light shots?

What do you want to photograph at night outdoors?
 
I haven't used a tripod yet but i have just bought one.
I do love the 50mm 1.8 which does more justice to photos jn low light.
For indoors, I was photographing an event recently (apparently my first), and the lighting wasn't good . It was an awards function. So, I don't want to get stuck in the sams sort of situation.
I don't have external flash! But i was thinking instead of spending about $400 (new zealand) on flash, i should invest that in a better lens. Which also means less equipment.
There is nothing in particular that I want to photograph at night outdoors but I want to be on the safe side.

That event was my second time in last 2 months that I had bad light issue and I don't want to move my ISO above 1600 or 3200 at the most.
I did faced that problem when I we did a workshop assignment on Bmx cycling photoshoot in evening. That was actually worse, because I wasn't able to go too slow on shutter speed to compensate for Bad light! So higher Iso means more grain and less sharp photos.
 
Niks27 said:
I haven't used a tripod yet but i have just bought one.
Click to expand...
good this will help with landscapes and cityscapes at night. Hopefully you got a sturdy one
Niks27 said:
I do love the 50mm 1.8 which does more justice to photos jn low light.
Click to expand...
good. What did you think of the focal length? I used a 50 1.8 on apsc and I thought the lens was a bit long for a lot of uses. That is where I am not understanding the 70-200. It is almost unusable indoors for events. Good for headshots tho......
Niks27 said:
For indoors, I was photographing an event recently (apparently my first), and the lighting wasn't good . It was an awards function. So, I don't want to get stuck in the sams sort of situation.
Click to expand...
typical
Niks27 said:
I don't have external flash! But i was thinking instead of spending about $400 (new zealand) on flash,
Click to expand...
try using the on board flash as a weak fill flash in many instances this will give you a good pic without ruining your shot
Niks27 said:
i should invest that in a better lens. Which also means less equipment.
There is nothing in particular that I want to photograph at night outdoors but I want to be on the safe side.
Click to expand...
Having a lens and no use for it seems a bit backwards. I identify shots that I want first then a lens if I cannot acheive it with my current kit
Niks27 said:
That event was my second time in last 2 months that I had bad light issue and I don't want to move my ISO above 1600 or 3200 at the most.
Click to expand...
Both indoors? If so it seems like you may want to be looking at a fast wide prime or good flash. Of course I do not know exactly what you are shooting. The sigma 16-35(?) 1.8 zoom is highly regarded but expensive.
Niks27 said:
I did faced that problem when I we did a workshop assignment on Bmx cycling photoshoot in evening. That was actually worse, because I wasn't able to go too slow on shutter speed to compensate for Bad light! So higher Iso means more grain and less sharp photos.
Click to expand...
How close were you able to get? Were shooting at 135?
 
Niks27 said:
I haven't used a tripod yet but i have just bought one.
Click to expand...
That is what you need for photographing non-moving subjects at night or in low light.
Niks27 said:
I do love the 50mm 1.8 which does more justice to photos jn low light.
For indoors, I was photographing an event recently (apparently my first), and the lighting wasn't good . It was an awards function. So, I don't want to get stuck in the sams sort of situation.
I don't have external flash! But i was thinking instead of spending about $400 (new zealand) on flash, i should invest that in a better lens. Which also means less equipment.
Click to expand...
Get an external flash with a head that can be tilted upwards to bounce off the ceiling. That is how a pro would shoot the sort of function that you are talking about. Something like a Canon 430EX would be fine but there are cheaper options.

Bouncing flash off the ceiling or a wall gives dramatically better quality that a built-in flash.
Niks27 said:
There is nothing in particular that I want to photograph at night outdoors but I want to be on the safe side.

That event was my second time in last 2 months that I had bad light issue and I don't want to move my ISO above 1600 or 3200 at the most.
I did faced that problem when I we did a workshop assignment on Bmx cycling photoshoot in evening. That was actually worse, because I wasn't able to go too slow on shutter speed to compensate for Bad light! So higher Iso means more grain and less sharp photos.
Click to expand...
That is the sort of event for which the 70-200mm f/2.8 would be useful, but it is a big expensive lens that isn't that versatile. It wouldn't be much good for your indoor functions because of the focal length range and it isn't long enough for, say, wildlife. It is certainly not the sort of lens that you would want to travel with. So you need to decide whether the cost/weight are worth the relatively small usage that you might get out of it.
 
A tripod would cost a lot less.
 
Thanks. I was shooting once indoors and once outdoors. But I do like your point that what exacrly I want to shoot. At this stage I am looking for landscapes and portraits. But its hard to say whether I will be shooting much in liw light!

The flash would be good for indoors but for outdoors! May be a full frame.
I was shooting about 60% of the time with 18-135 because I couldn't move much with the 50mm.
 
Tripod definitely cost less, but how will the slow shutter speed help with moving people or subject!!!!
 
I have ordered an teipod already, which will help me with non moving objects, as you said. Also, might consider the flash if I will be doung more events.

But other than this what lens would you recommend to give same sharp or better image than 50mm but with a little movement as well!

Thanks
 
Well I think you need a combination of things.......

Indoors something wider than the 50 but still at least 1.8 will probably give you a big step up. Obviously mixing a 1.8 and full frame will give you approx one more stop advantage

Outdoors the 2.8 will help. If you knew what focal length you were likely to use there are some good lenses in fast primes you could buy. I just think the 70-200 is too long unless you are trying to shoot events that you cannot get near.

The onboard fill flash can help you expose a scene without totally ruining it. It definitely is not strong enough for outdoors but there are plenty of accessory flash that easily reach 100mm

I wish there was one silver bullet. Well actually there is the sony a7s and is it the nikon d810?. Those things are absolute freaks in low light, but they are speciality cameras. Very expensive and have theier own quirks
 
Niks27 said:
I have ordered an teipod already, which will help me with non moving objects, as you said. Also, might consider the flash if I will be doung more events.

But other than this what lens would you recommend to give same sharp or better image than 50mm but with a little movement as well!
Click to expand...
I am afraid that I don't understand your question. What do you mean by a little movement?
 
Ooops Sorry my bad. I mean movement with zoom. Like someone recommended in this forum that sigma16-35/1.8 is pretty good. Could you recommend something! Please

Thanks
 
Yup you are quite right. I think that is something I need to find out thst what focal length I need. Also, definitely look for a good 2.8 for outdoors as well.
Meanwhile if you have any recommendations for a good lens for landscapes and portraits, please let me know.

Thanks
 
The 16-35 is in a glass of its own. There is no other 1.8 zoom. It is also very good optically and 1000 for glass of that type is not a bad price. It is apsc only and a large lens. Would not help you when your subject is far away but indoors, citiscpaes, and astropgraphy it is greatt. There are other cheaper sharper lenses but you het a bit of flexibility with the sigma and it is very good
 
Two different things here most of the time. Unless you like stitching scenes together for landscapes or like distorted faces
 
Niks27 said:
Ooops Sorry my bad. I mean movement with zoom. Like someone recommended in this forum that sigma16-35/1.8 is pretty good. Could you recommend something! Please

Thanks
Click to expand...
I am going to skip ahead because I want to watch some football.

If the 50 1.8 is not long enough for your portraits(personally I loved this on apsc) then I would say look at the 85 1.8, 100 f2, or 135 1.8. They are all fast and sharp.

For a wide angle.......this is tougher on apsc.......maybe the old 20 1.8?......the 24 2.8 stm is very nice but I do not know if it would be wide or fast enough for your needs. Look back through photos you have taken and see if there is a common focal length you have used then look for lenses in that range
 
This is a summary of where I think that we have got to.
  • You are looking for something for travel, for night time outdoors and for indoors.
  • I think that we have established that neither a Canon 7D MkII nor a 70-200mm f/2.8 will solve your problems.
  • You have ordered a tripod which will help with a lot of your night time problems.
  • A flash will help with your indoor events.
  • An f/1.8 zoom for both portraits and landscapes doesn't exist.
  • Golfhov has given you recommendations for fast prime lenses.
  • Moving to full frame will enable you to use higher ISOs.
Have I missed anything.

My suggestion is that:
  1. You see how you get on with the tripod.
  2. You buy an external flash.
  3. You consider either getting one or more fast primes or getting a FF camera.
Maybe golfhov will have some other suggestions when his football has finished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top